Best posts made by Derp

@Sparks said in The ADD/ADHD Thread (cont'd from Peeves):

if I am in that mode at work and you bring me something new, I will shift to work on that and then return to the original thing afterwards. Unfortunately, I often then find it hard to return to the original thing.

The way I deal with this? The post-it program on my computer. Someone brings me something, it gets added to the list. Things get done in the order they were brought. People now know that if it is super pressing, they may just want to do it themselves.

Because I am an assistant working for four people, not one, and I will not prioritize one over the other unless there is a super compelling reason to do so, like a short deadline on something for the court.

@Ganymede said:

@Derp said:

I agree that it's not a bad system. The problem with it is that it requires an audience. It's a political debate between two people wherein there are spectators involved, which works great for things like Elysium, but not so great when you just need to convince a person to do a thing and there aren't a hundred people around to witness it. Doors, on the other hand, work in both situations, which makes them slightly better, IMO.

Yeah, but the Impression limitation makes it so engh for a MU*.

I generally stick to the old "Roll Manipulation + Persuasion" method, myself.

Yeah, that's why I suggested the change to Impression. Currently, Hostile works like what @Miss-Demeanor says, which is pretty lame when you have a whole spectrum of 'friendly' impressions but only one 'unfriendly' impression, and anything below neutral prevents rolling. You should be able to convince more than just your friends to do things, and while leverage has its place, it's a limited system. It's why I would include Uneasy and Unfriendly, and have Hostile be just for when there is actual violence or some other real, tangible harm going down, since at that point all negotiation has failed.

One thing that tends to happen a lot --

People start working out and quit smoking at the same time. It's a commendable approach to overall health, but really? You probably shouldn't do this.

Studies have shown that cessation of smoking can cause weight gain even in those that don't consume any extra calories and get regular exercise. Which, in turn, gives them the impression that the exercise and such isn't working. Which increases stress. Which leads to taking up smoking again.

So now they're even heavier and jaded because they gave it a go and it didn't work, despite their best efforts. Many exhaust themselves to the point of injury.

TL;DR -- Exercise, or quit smoking. One or the other. Don't do both until you're comfortable with the one you chose first. It can be super counterproductive.

@Miss-Demeanor said:

Besides, from what I can tell, it would take someone with low social stats and/or horrible luck rolling to actually -lose- a social contest. Much like with nwod physical combat, it seems weighted on the side of the 'attacker' with the 'defender' simply sitting there being worn down by a barrage of verbal assaults until they either give in completely or do the offer an alternative thing. I have yet to see anything set in the rules for the target to actually fight back, verbally speaking.

Lots of people think this, and I'm really not sure where it comes from. Rolls can be contested, and you still have a limited number of rolls, etc, and modifiers for things can still be assigned.

Aside from that, you of course have the option of trying to convince the other person to do something at the same time. The 'Defender' isn't a passive actor. They're only a defender against a specific roll. They can just as easily be the 'attacker' on the next roll, and if leverage and such are used creatively, you can even have one person capable of making quicker rolls, or having fewer doors than the other, etc. It's chess, not darts.

@Rinel said in The Work Thread:

Copy-paste the entire original memo and slap on an introductory paragraph explaining why the standard of review is de novo?

Just add the original as an exhibit to the new one!

@surreality said:

@p. 165

If that’s the case, the Storyteller can opt to use a Down and Dirty Combat.

I rest my case. It is not the standard combat system. Corner cases don't change that.

Except that, again, this is a default mechanic of gauru form. It's not an optional system for use in that shape. Outside of gauru a storyteller can also choose to use it, but in gauru, it's the way things go down.

So I see your point, but it's really sort of moot. And since the entire discussion rests on finding a way to choose in-game systems of influence, etc, and we've been talking about one that is, in particular, already built into the system, I'm not sure that your points are entirely relevant to the discussion at hand, as you seem to be arguing 'don't use one' instead of 'which to use', like the OP asks.

@Ganymede said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

Here in Ohio, we have weeks that start with a high of 90 and fall to a low of 40.

Pfft. Move over one state. We have days that start like that.

I mean, granted, I don't like a whole lot of people and will go out of my way to avoid quite a few of them, when reasonable. That said, I'm not sure who you are, so I don't think we've got beef.

That said, this doesn't sound all that uncommon, and I'm pretty sure it's not you personally. Some people get their rocks off by playing the gender-neutral catty mean girl archtype that just has to stir the pot.

Best to ignore it.

@Auspice

Meghan Trainor - Dear Future Husband

@surreality said:

Something not that system that is universal is very much a needed thing, as that one is not really appropriate for PvP, which is even noted empathically by the people who created it.

But the problem with the system, in the developer's eyes, is that characters should keep some control over their actions, particularly because they tend to be working together or toward the same goals. The groups in question, around the table, are all on the same team. This cannot be said for those in the MU environs, and again, we need to distinguish what is meant by NPC in the books versus NPC in something as wide as a MU.

If you continue to say that Doors as a system is inoptimal for PvP purposes, you have to consider why. The why, as noted, is because of player control of characters. But if that's the problem that you think is too much to allow Doors to be used, then what real resolution can you have for social systems? You are still allowing a player to ignore a function of the dice. Until we agree that some things in social combat are not entirely under the control of the defender, and acknowledge that sometimes, there has to be give and take on both sides of the equation, we're left with little more than the freeform systems that we currently have.

Just saying that the developers intended it to be an optional system isn't a real defense against not using it, as the very reason they say not to use it is the problem that this thread is attempting to address -- you cannot have a system that both determines social resolution and allows players unlimited social control.

@LoaKey

John Mayer - Slow Dancing in a Burning Room

@HelloProject said:

If the system literally says that the social combat rules aren't optimal for PVP, then they really aren't even necessary as anything more than a novelty, which seems to be what @surreality did.

That said, if the system is in a PVP environment where people have stuff like XP and other resources that can be gained through dice mechanics, then me, personally, I'd go with a different system entirely. What system, I have no idea, since I'm not sure what theme you're trying to use the system with.

They don't actually say that they aren't good for PvP. They say that they recommend things be worked out in RP, and then go on to provide a system for how to use them in PvP.

But because it’s the persuader’s player making the rolls, the target is left without a way to say “no.” As such, it’s our recommendation that this system be used by player-controlled characters on Storyteller characters rather than on other players’ characters. If one player’s character wants to seduce, persuade, convince, or intimidate another, leave it up to roleplaying and let players make their own decisions about what their characters do.

Which is a real concern, certainly. But then they go on to provide a solution for this as well.

If you allow players’ characters to be the targets of Social maneuvering, resolve this stage as a negotiation with two possible outcomes. The subject chooses to abide by the desired goal or offer a beneficial alternative.

Wherein if they go with the flow, the person affected gets a beat. (Part of the XP system)

These lines come from the GMCRU. They weren't included in Vampire or Demon. This has caused much, much contention. Hopefully, the WOD2 book that comes out clears at least some of this up.

The people saying that it's in absolutely no way intended for PvP situations tend to be reading a bit too much into it, IMO.

@Otrere

Avril Lavigne - What the Hell

@lordbelh said:

@Derp said:

They don't actually say that they aren't good for PvP. They say that they recommend things be worked out in RP, and then go on to provide a system for how to use them in PvP.

As always you seem to have some real trouble with reading only what you want to read. The developers very much states that it isn't useful for PvP because only one side is active.. Basically its like physical combat only just the aggressor is allowed to roll. Which would be bad enough if social interactions aren't also a million times more complicated than physical ones.

Except it's clearly you that has trouble reading, as they go on later to say that the rolls can be contested. As has been stated before. Countless times, now.

@hedgehog

Captain and Tennille - Love Will Keep us Together

@lordbelh said:

@Derp Even when individual rolls may be contested, there's no parity in the Doors system. There's one active participant, and one passive participant. For what it's there to do, its a good system. But not for PvP.

Which is rather easily addressed, as well. The other party can attempt to counter-influence the person who is attempting to influence them, using the same system. There is nothing preventing that. NPCs don't normally do that, true, but another PC could very easily try and convince the other person that it's not a path they wish to go down. There is parity, in the form of equality. The rules apply equally to all parties, and can be used on all parties at the same time, in the same way.

@Rinel said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

@saosmash said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

today, i drove to the wrong courthouse, in the wrong city, for a hearing.

This is meant in the spirit of solidarity, not oneupsmanship.

Today I learned that in relation to the writ application I filed last week (my first time personally filing anything), I:

1. Failed to complete the index, which was also incorrectly numbered (violation of the uniform rules of the state's appellate courts),
2. failed to send a copy to opposing counsel and the trial court and include an affidavit thereto (violation of the local rules of the court), and
3. failed to ensure that our office manager scanned a copy of the complete file into our digital records.

My boss is calling in an hour to discuss the event. I'm hoping I can put on my big girl pants and stop being a total wreck before then.

See, here, that would be NBD. Our court will just stamp it with a NOTICE OF DEFECT, and send it back like 'do it again'.

@surreality said:

@Derp said:

But the problem with the system, in the developer's eyes, is that characters should keep some control over their actions, particularly because they tend to be working together or toward the same goals. The groups in question, around the table, are all on the same team. This cannot be said for those in the MU environs, and again, we need to distinguish what is meant by NPC in the books versus NPC in something as wide as a MU.

Oh that's what they said? Except it just fucking isn't.

Under a strict reading of these rules, one character could use Social maneuvering to get another to do whatever she wants. That’s not quite right, since it’s the persuader’s player making the rolls. His victim doesn’t get any option to say “no.” As such, this system should only be used by player-controlled characters on Storyteller characters. Leave the manipulation of other player’s characters to roleplaying, and let the players determine their characters’ respons- es.

• (WTF2e Final.)

It is not always possible to get someone to do what you want. For instance, no amount of Social maneuver- ing is going to convince the chief of police in a large city to hold a press conference and admit to murder, even if the player has a dice pool impressive enough to make it happen. This system is designed to allow characters to manipulate or convince other characters to perform favors or undertake actions, but it does raise the question: Is one character dictating another’s actions, and how much of that should be allowed in a role-playing game? Or, put a different way, can one character seduce another with this system?
Under a strict read of the rules, yes. The goal is “get that character to sleep with my character,” the number of Doors is decided as explained below, and impressions and other factors play into the final result. This is not too different from how se- duction and other, less carnal, forms of persuasion actually work — the persuader tries to make the offer as enticing as possible.
But because it’s the persuader’s player making the rolls, the target is left without a way to say “no.” As such, it’s our recommendation that this system be used by player-controlled characters on Storyteller characters rather than on other players’ characters. If one player’s character wants to seduce, persuade, convince, or intimi- date another, leave it up to roleplaying and let players make their own decisions about what their characters do.

• (GMC.)

Funny how their why and your why bear zero fucking resemblance to one another.

Except see the part I quoted above, which comes after that part in the GMCRU, about using it with other players.

Damn. Funny how that works, huh? If you're going to get all frothy at the mouth and tell me I'm wrong, at least read what the hell I write and then go reference the later part of it. Goddamn.

@Tinuviel said in The Weirdest Thing I Ever Purposefully Did on the Internet:

@Auspice The number of times I've had to self-explain my search history as "I'm a writer" or "I'm a teacher" astounds me.

I'll see both of those and raise you "I'm a lawyer" or "I'm a paralegal" or some other form of "I work for the government."

@HelloProject said:

@surreality I could see myself enjoying things significantly more if a MU*'s rules specifically treated social combat as equal to physical combat in terms of needing an ST. It's ridiculous that we have disputes like people literally treating social rolls like telepathy, which would be easily solved if ST intervention was accepted as a normal aspect of social combat.

I'm still not sure where a lot of this comes from, to be honest. In any situation in which two players are rolling dice at each other, you should be able to call for an ST. That, like, basic gaming common sense. Hell, if someone asked me to come and adjudicate something social, I'd be there in a heartbeat. Combat, too. Or maybe they're writing a dissertation and want to write out that little story and find kinks and flaws or something. Mental stuff is no different.

Dice involved = ST can be called to be present if the players wish.